Editorial: A debate before war

A new clarification of war powers might result in a more intensive public debate before the next war. Still, it won’t substitute for political backbone in a dangerous time.

The Patriot Ledger

As one of the legislators who voted against giving the Bush administration the authority to invade Iraq, U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, the Quincy Democrat, has long been opposed to the Bush administration’s headlong rush into war there.

During the debate over whether to attack Iraq, Delahunt raised relevant questions about the decision to invade and how the aftermath of an invasion would be handled. Had Congress forced the administration to answer those questions before giving the invasion the green light, the current situation in Iraq could be far different.

Most recently, Delahunt has sponsored a bill that attempts to clarify the roles of Congress and the President in matters of war-waging. The Constitution, in its provision for the separation of powers, made the President commander in chief, but appointed Congress the authority for declaring war and funding military operations.

Constitutional intent, however, has not stopped presidents from waging “conflicts” abroad, and historically Congress has had difficulty stopping wars once troops were being fired upon.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 attempted to give the President flexibility for handling short-term conflicts while requiring Congress to explicitly give its consent for more protracted military operations. Critics of that legislation say it, too, has failed to fully clarify the way that the President and Congress should jointly take responsibility for war.

Delahunt’s bill, which has bipartisan support from Republican Reps. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, grew out of a 2005 report from The Constitution Project, a non-partisan Washington think tank that seeks to build consensus on difficult constitutional questions.

The report, available at constitutionproject.org, was written by a committee of academic and political experts from varying viewpoints. It spells out how the authors believe the President and Congress should interact in deciding upon war, and on continuing to wage war.

Virginia Sloan, president of The Constitution Project, said the public would have been better served by more Congressional debate and involvement in 2002 before the invasion of Iraq.

“They basically have punted,” she said of Congress in the lead up to the war.

A new clarification of war powers might result in a more intensive public debate before the next war. Still, it won’t substitute for political backbone in a dangerous time.